We could conclude a lot pf things. The vertical mixing. which in the average shows only a slight trend in the 0-700 meter range, moving more heat to the lower levels would be another conclusion which could be made. That is supproted by the data without an assumption of data error.

Vertical Mixing and how it varies over time is still poorly understood, which is a product of our lack of knowledge on the chaotic nature of the Climate System.

That on top of sporadic, inadequate data has me skeptical on the data plotted for the 0-2000 meter range.

Was the mid 1980s through mid 1990s a problem? It would have been if you were doing the same review than as you are now.

Decreasing Solar Output could be responsible for the current hiatus in the warming. It could also be due to a negative feedback in response to warming. It could also be something else like internal climatic variability.

These would not bode so well for the CAGW Hypothesis of massive warming due to CO2 by the end of this century.

Now the problem with your analogy is that TSI may have been increasing during this period, on top of decreasing Cloud Cover, so it is not a problem if you are to hypothesize that most of Global Warming over the last 30 years is natural.

We could conclude a lot pf things. The vertical mixing. which in the average shows only a slight trend in the 0-700 meter range, moving more heat to the lower levels would be another conclusion which could be made. That is supproted by the data without an assumption of data error.

Vertical Mixing and how it varies over time is still poorly understood, which is a product of our lack of knowledge on the chaotic nature of the Climate System.

That on top of sporadic, inadequate data has me skeptical on the data plotted for the 0-2000 meter range.

Which in no way supports the conclusion the data is not correct other than the desire for it to be so due to the prior decision to be skeptical about certain aspects only.

The fact is that hypothesis fits the data rather than assuming part of the data is bad because there is not as much understanding of the mechanisms, although we know the process does happen given the conveyor changes in El Nino and La Nina events, for example.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Was the mid 1980s through mid 1990s a problem? It would have been if you were doing the same review than as you are now.

Decreasing Solar Output could be responsible for the current hiatus in the warming. It could also be due to a negative feedback in response to warming. It could also be something else like internal climatic variability.

Which ignores the point completely. The cause is moot, but the leaping to the conclusion the warming has stopped and there is no longer a concern would be wrong.

Quote:

These would not bode so well for the CAGW Hypothesis of massive warming due to CO2 by the end of this century.

Why? There is a lot of time between now and the end of the century and the increased slope seen in the past could more than offset a more shallow slope now. You focus more on the weather than the climate view.

Quote:

Now the problem with your analogy is that TSI may have been increasing during this period, on top of decreasing Cloud Cover, so it is not a problem if you are to hypothesize that most of Global Warming over the last 30 years is natural.

May have been increasing? Why is it you are skeptical of the lack of data, or the lack of quality data in some cases and not others? It seems that a personal view dictates which is acceptable to you regardless of the level of support that can realistically be given to the hypothesis.

You seem to believe there is no problem if most of something is natural. That is not very accurate. We currently have a life expectancy of about 80 years in the US, which means we are all naturally dying from the time we are born. Thus, if a person contracts cancer from a human causation and dies at the age of 70 there should be no problem since it was mostly natural to die at that age? How about carcinogen in your drinking water? If most of the level is natural the human induced addition would not be a problem for you? The human addition to a natural situation can cause an unhappy ending and that is a problem.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Which ignores the point completely. The cause is moot, but the leaping to the conclusion the warming has stopped and there is no longer a concern would be wrong.

I didn't say that there is no concern. Quite frankly, I've been saying the opposite, saying the human influence should be kept to a minimum, so that if there are any 'tipping points,' they will not be reached.

Quote:

Why? There is a lot of time between now and the end of the century and the increased slope seen in the past could more than offset a more shallow slope now. You focus more on the weather than the climate view.

Again, you can't compare this current hiatus to past hiatus periods in the past, because this latest hiatus period is where we supposedly have accumulated the most energy from the radiative forcing from CO2, making it VERY unusual, and was NOT predicted by any of the Pro-AGW organizations/studies. Climate Models predicted that a significant energy imbalance should be occuring, making this hiatus period VERY unusual.

Quote:

May have been increasing? Why is it you are skeptical of the lack of data, or the lack of quality data in some cases and not others? It seems that a personal view dictates which is acceptable to you regardless of the level of support that can realistically be given to the hypothesis.

The ACRIM and PMOD datasets are some of the most prominent TSI monitoring organizations. I am saying "may" because ACRIM shows TSI increasing over the last 30 years. PMOD does not. Given this uncertainty, I'm using the word "may."

Quote:

If most of the level is natural the human induced addition would not be a problem for you? The human addition to a natural situation can cause an unhappy ending and that is a problem.

Which in no way supports the conclusion the data is not correct other than the desire for it to be so due to the prior decision to be skeptical about certain aspects only.

Again, I have said multiple times now that the data is pretty poor in this range, and one should not base their conclusions off of this dataset.

We pretty much had no data in this range before 2003, so we don't know if the OHC gain for this range has slowed down as well. We don't know if it has flatlined or not, because there was no data before 2003 for the 0-2000 meter dataset.

The discrepency between 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters in Warmair's graph is because of the ARGO floats being deployed in 2003-2005. Note that the two datasets are identical to each other until recently over the last several years.

That's because there is NO data for the 0-2000 m range for this timeframe.

We simply do not know if it has flatlined or if it has slowed, because there is no data before this timeframe for the 0-2000 m range.

Which in no way supports the conclusion the data is not correct other than the desire for it to be so due to the prior decision to be skeptical about certain aspects only.

Again, I have said multiple times now that the data is pretty poor in this range, and one should not base their conclusions off of this dataset.

We pretty much had no data in this range before 2003, so we don't know if the OHC gain for this range has slowed down as well. We don't know if it has flatlined or not, because there was no data before 2003 for the 0-2000 meter dataset.

The discrepency between 0-700 meters and 0-2000 meters in Warmair's graph is because of the ARGO floats being deployed in 2003-2005. Note that the two datasets are identical to each other until recently over the last several years.

That's because there is NO data for the 0-2000 m range for this timeframe.

We simply do not know if it has flatlined or if it has slowed, because there is no data before this timeframe for the 0-2000 m range.

What? We do know it has not flatlined because the measurements are not showing that. Slowing? That would be nice to know, but the indication from rhe data would be closer to an acceleration rather than slowing given the slope of the graph. There is no good data for many of the items for which you have indicated are critical in the past, but that has not caused them to be taken with any less consideration.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

What? We do know it has not flatlined because the measurements are not showing that. Slowing? That would be nice to know, but the indication from rhe data would be closer to an acceleration rather than slowing given the slope of the graph. There is no good data for many of the items for which you have indicated are critical in the past, but that has not caused them to be taken with any less consideration.

We don't have any measurements for 0-2000 meters before 2003, so we don't know if it's slowing, flatlining or what.

What? We do know it has not flatlined because the measurements are not showing that. Slowing? That would be nice to know, but the indication from rhe data would be closer to an acceleration rather than slowing given the slope of the graph. There is no good data for many of the items for which you have indicated are critical in the past, but that has not caused them to be taken with any less consideration.

We don't have any measurements for 0-2000 meters before 2003, so we don't know if it's slowing, flatlining or what.

That's why the measurements should be taken with a grain of salt.

Good, we take the claims of "cooling" and the like based on snippets of data with more salt or are we supposed to accept them and ignore the rest of the data? You are trying too hard to ignore data because it does not fit your beliefs, but you are wanting everyone else to accept the snippets for similar periods as being complete.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Good, we take the claims of "cooling" and the like based on snippets of data with more salt or are we supposed to accept them and ignore the rest of the data? You are trying too hard to ignore data because it does not fit your beliefs, but you are wanting everyone else to accept the snippets for similar periods as being complete.

No.

The Earth is not cooling because there is no trend that meets the 95% Significance that has a negative slope.

Good, we take the claims of "cooling" and the like based on snippets of data with more salt or are we supposed to accept them and ignore the rest of the data? You are trying too hard to ignore data because it does not fit your beliefs, but you are wanting everyone else to accept the snippets for similar periods as being complete.

No.

The Earth is not cooling because there is no trend that meets the 95% Significance that has a negative slope.

Poor comparison.

The trend is warming, but you still try to diffuse that by taking short term snippets of data an claiming the warming "has stopped" for whatever reason.

How about the claims of GCR impacting cloud formation. What is the length of time for those actual measurements used to draw the conclusion of causation?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The trend is warming, but you still try to diffuse that by taking short term snippets of data an claiming the warming "has stopped" for whatever reason.

What is the length of time for those actual measurements used to draw the conclusion of causation?

Well yes, it has temporarily stopped. That's what the data shows. The LT Temperatures and the Surface Temperatures have shown us flatlining for 11 years now.

Look at the Diurnal Temperatures after a Forbush Decrease. Look at the Global Aerosoles measured by AERONET after a Forbush Decrease. Look at the CERN results that PROVED that Cosmic Rays can impact Cloud Cover.

Which ignores the point completely. The cause is moot, but the leaping to the conclusion the warming has stopped and there is no longer a concern would be wrong.

I didn't say that there is no concern. Quite frankly, I've been saying the opposite, saying the human influence should be kept to a minimum, so that if there are any 'tipping points,' they will not be reached.

So that is why we see so many claims of warming being "natural" and "AGW is false"? The actions speak louder.

Quote:

Quote:

Why? There is a lot of time between now and the end of the century and the increased slope seen in the past could more than offset a more shallow slope now. You focus more on the weather than the climate view.

Again, you can't compare this current hiatus to past hiatus periods in the past, because this latest hiatus period is where we supposedly have accumulated the most energy from the radiative forcing from CO2, making it VERY unusual, and was NOT predicted by any of the Pro-AGW organizations/studies. Climate Models predicted that a significant energy imbalance should be occuring, making this hiatus period VERY unusual.

Why not? If the solar output decreases even with added CO2 there will be a decrease in temperature potential. The scenarios are run with an "all other things equal" and "over the long term" criteria you seem to always miss when making claims about them.

Quote:

Quote:

May have been increasing? Why is it you are skeptical of the lack of data, or the lack of quality data in some cases and not others? It seems that a personal view dictates which is acceptable to you regardless of the level of support that can realistically be given to the hypothesis.

The ACRIM and PMOD datasets are some of the most prominent TSI monitoring organizations. I am saying "may" because ACRIM shows TSI increasing over the last 30 years. PMOD does not. Given this uncertainty, I'm using the word "may."

But you appraoch it as if the ACRIM was correct .... and the other supporting data seems to side with PMOD.

Quote:

Quote:

If most of the level is natural the human induced addition would not be a problem for you? The human addition to a natural situation can cause an unhappy ending and that is a problem.

See my first point.

Then why focus on trying to find every little flaw you can claim makes the difference?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein